Truth Magazine

By W C. Sawyer

Often we hear people say they are tired of the constant fight put up by certain preachers of the church and that we should teach more on “love.” Possibly those who criticize strong negative teaching do not understand that Christ was the strongest teacher and practitioner of “love,” yet he rebuked anyone who departed from the plan of God. He believed it was necessary to engage in controversy, and when the Pharisees tried to entangle him in his talk (Matt. 22:15-18), he exposed their hypocrisy.

Throughout the old and new Testaments there has been controversy. David challenged Goliath. Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18. Christ came to send a sword as recorded in Matt. 10:34-38. Stephen made a great stand for truth in Acts 6:8-15 which cost him his life. Paul took the enemies of Christ to task daily in the temple (Acts 17:17). We are commanded today to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). Could anyone say that those who took the enemy of Christ to task did not have “love”? When our Lord exposed error, did he have love for the souls of men? We must be sure that as we expose error that we do it because of the love for the truth and the souls of men rather than any personal feeling we may have toward an individual or group of people.

Apostasy comes so gradually that people will sometimes accept error for truth. Just recently I have attended a number of weddings in the Christian church. I am amazed at how far they have left principles that were very strong many years ago when the split came over missionary societies and instrumental music. Several times I have seen on a Friday or Saturday the Lord’s Supper served to the ones getting married, their court and the preacher. These things are done to make the service impressive. There is no place in the scripture where the Lord’s Supper was authorized to be taken except on the first day of the week.

When the Scribes and Pharisees brought accusation against the disciples of our Lord for not keeping the traditions under the Law, Christ had something to say about their hypocrisy. Verse 8 says: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.”

It is very easy to see the error of others, but I am concerned about our own. I cannot see how those who ignore the plain teaching of Christ and His word can expect God to overlook their open rebellion. While we can see the mistakes of others, let us not lose sight of our own. There are things taught and practiced in the Lord’s house today that are just as bad as the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees under the law. Christ required them to repent and turn to God. Every member of the Lord’s church must repent of every sin in order to be saved.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26; p. 6
May 2, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Inasmuch as some of our brethren have begun to advocate “unconditional grace,” at least for certain sins of Christians, it might therefore be helpful if we pause again to discuss the characteristics of God which made necessary the death of Christ, and made provision for the “word of his grace” (Acts 20:32). There are some brethren who now are teaching that Christians somehow can receive forgiveness of “sins of ignorance,” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh” without meeting the terms of what has been called “God’s Second Law of Pardon.” These brethren simply mean that a Christian can be saved in spite of his guilt of certain sins, and without obeying God’s law of forgiveness which entails repentance, confession, and prayer. Through this means, some of our brethren are maintaining that one can be saved, even though he may have died “with sin on his soul.”

These brethren have made up their own category of sins, much like the Catholics have their “mortal” and “venial” sins. Some of our brethren therefore are concluding that if men are ignorant of the fact that institutionalism and instrumental music in worship are sinful (and hence they have neither repented of these sins, nor confessed them), they nonetheless will be admitted into heaven in spite of the fact that they died with these sins “on their soul.” What these brethren have not yet spelled out explicitly for us, but which is the inevitable consequence of their position, is that these people who die with these “sins on their soul” are going to be saved in spite of their guilt of these sins. It therefore follows that if such sinners can still have fellowship with God, both now and eternally, then they certainly should be kept in our fellowship here on earth. Brethren: Do not ever forget that this is what all this theological maneuvering is about! This is why we are hearing so much about “sins of ignorance,” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh,” and then the “imputation of the perfect righteousness” of Christ is introduced. These brethren, who are either deluded or deceiving, have not been forced to state explicitly publicly that what they are getting at is that we should be fellowshiping the liberal brethren and certain ones in the Christian Church. But this is the inherent implication of their position, and I predict will eventually be the overt pronouncements which they will draw from these minute theological differentiations which they are making.

Such brethren do the nature of God no credit. Perhaps it is done without knowing it (maybe theirs is a “sin of ignorance”), but they have most severely reflected upon the character of God. They have indicted both His holiness and His justice, as we shall later show.

God’s attributes are those inherent qualities which make God to be God. The Bible in many places speaks of the importance of us knowing God (Ps. 100:3; Heb. 8:11; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:30). Very protracted lessons could be given on the characteristics of God. However, it is not my intention now to deal with all the characteristics of God which are revealed in His Word. There are some things that can be learned about God from observing His creation (Ps. 19:1, 2; Rom. 1:20), but Paul says those traits learned from nature are limited to “his everlasting power and divinity.” The Psalmist said we can learn of the “glory” of God from observing the heavens. However, Jesus taught that the person (i.e., His characteristics) and His will can only be learned by revelation through Christ (Matt. 11:27). But when we learn of God’s characteristics from His revelation, we then will be able to understand why Christ died for our sins, and why God cannot wink at sin or pass-by unforgiven sins. The affirmation that He can do either constitutes a very serious reflection upon His infinite holiness and justice.

God’s Holiness

The Bible speaks of the infinite holiness of God (Ps. 111:9; Isa. 6:1-3; Rev. 4:7, 8). Man is commanded to be holy, even as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:15; Lev. 11:44). We may speak of holy men, but we only speak of man’s relative holiness. But God is perfect; in Him is no sin at all (Ps. 18:30; Matt. 5:48). In fact, God’s holiness is such that if He sinned, He would not be God! Sinlessness is a part of the definition of Jehovah. Paul said that God “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:1, 2). The Lord Jesus Christ is the only person in the flesh who ever lived without sin (Heb. 4:14, 15; 1 Pet. 2:21, 22). Since Jesus lived a perfect life, some of our brethren have concluded that His perfect righteousness will be credited to our account. Implicit in this position being advocated by some of our brethren is the rankest form of Calvinistic “election” (partiality). The perfect life of Christ was that which qualified Him to be a perfect sacrifice for sin. The priests of the Old Testament had to offer sacrifices first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people. But Jesus was “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). If our Lord had not lived a sinless life, He would not have been qualified to die for our sins. Instead, He would have deserved to die for His own sins. The grounds of our forgiveness is the appropriation of that which He accomplished in His death. His perfect life merely qualified Him as a perfect sacrifice.

A profound thought inheres in the statement that God is infinitely holy. It implies that God is the standard of holiness, truth, beauty, etc. The thought of the infinite holiness of God causes one to reflect upon one of the profoundest thoughts that legitimately may be called philosophical. If God is not the standard of holiness, would you mind telling me what is? If God is not the standard of holiness, then there must be some standard external to Him. On occasions I have heard even brethren ask some questions that made me cringe. On many occasions, I have heard brethren say, “But how could an infinitely holy God do a thing like this?” Such a question implies that there is some standard of holiness external to God, and to which even He must conform. If there is, will somebody please tell me what it is?

Plato had in his philosophical system a “World of Ideas” which was above his god which he called the Demiurge. I sometimes have felt that some brethren may have borrowed this concept from the Greeks. For perhaps twenty years, I have been unable to “buy” the differentiation that some brethren make between “moral” and “positive” law, which differentiation was evidently lifted from Brother Benjamin Franklin. No doubt he borrowed it from some other source. When brethren talk about “moral” and “positive” law, they usually state that “positive” law becomes law simply because God has commanded it. But they tell us that “moral” law has always been right. What made it right? Who made it right? Is not “moral law” law simply because it comports to God’s infinite holiness? And are not violations of this “moral law” sin simply because they violate and contradict God’s infinite holiness?

Some atheists are “moral” in spite of their atheism. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that will make a man moral. Moral atheists have borrowed their standard of morality, whether they wish to acknowledge it or not. Why should one not steal? Why should one not kill? Why should one not commit adultery? Many rationalizations may be given, but all of these questions have but one answer: Man should not kill, steal, or commit adultery simply because God said not to do these things. The truth of the matter is that one cannot even meaningfully use the word “ought” without implying God. This “oughtness” is what man has termed “ethics.” The philosophers call it the “categorical imperative,” or the “divine imperative.” God’s will ought to be obeyed because God is God, the eternal and infinite standard of holiness.

But the tragedy in man’s history is that he violated God’s infinite holiness; man violated God’s will. From the Garden of Eden down to this moment, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only accountable being who ever lived on earth completely without sin. Paul concluded in Romans 3, “we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin” (3:9). Man has violated God’s holiness. But God’s holiness is such that sin cannot be tolerated in His presence. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden and cut off from the presence of God. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1, 2). It is precisely for this reason, good brethren, that God cannot admit into His eternal presence those who “die with sin on their soul,” and it matters not whether these sins are “sins of ignorance,” or “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh.” And our brethren need to be made to see that they have compromised God’s eternal and infinite holiness by advocating that He will accept into His presence persons who “die with sin on their soul.” If He will, why did He banish Adam and Eve from His presence? If some brethren could be caused to see this point, it would stop some of the theological contortions through which some are going in their effort to get some who “die with sin on their soul” saved, even though they do not repent, confess, and pray . . . even though they do not comply with God’s “Second Law of Pardon.”

God’s Justice

God’s holiness having been violated, God’s justice demanded that these violators be punished. The Bible states that “Jehovah is a God of justice” (Isa. 30:18). Indeed, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne” (Ps. 89:14). But what is “justice”? Isn’t it a little uncanny the way we bandy words about, and assume that we all understand them . . . until some fellow stops us and asks us to give a definition of the word we have used? Take the word, “justice.” What does that mean? The courts of law may take a good while in order to give a comprehensive definition of that word. But it did not take the apostle Paul very long to define “justice.” While discussing the “righteous judgment of God,” Paul said that He “will render to every man according to his work” (Rom. 2:5, 6). To the faithful who have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, God will render “eternal life.” But to those who “obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness,” God will render “wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish” (Rom. 2:7-9).

Just as God is infinitely holy, so also is He infinitely just. God will “bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecc. 12:13). Sir William Blackstone is sometimes referred to as the “Father of English Law.” Blackstone said that where there is no penalty attached for the violation of the law, there is neither respect for the law, nor for the law-giver. Parents, you had better copy that down for future and frequent reference. Every time a parent permits flagrant disregard of his law, he not only is causing his child to disrespect his law, but the child likewise will disrespect the law-giver, who in this case is the parent. The failure to extract punishment when law is disregarded is basically what causes what we may call the ills of our society. Failure to punish those who disobey law is what causes chaos in our streets, disorder in our schools, defiance in our homes, and corruption in the church.

God’s law had been violated. The penalty stated was “thou shalt die” (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). Until the death of Christ, the full penalty for sin had not been paid, for there was no adequate sin-offering. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Heb. 10:1-4), and God could not indefinitely “wink-at” or overlook sin. Something more had to be done, or else man was hopelessly and eternally ruined. God’s justice demanded hell!

God’s Mercy

But God’s justice was tempered by His great mercy. “Justice and Mercy met and kissed in the death of Jesus.” God was rich in mercy and love (Eph. 2:4). But God’s characteristics cannot work against themselves. God cannot violate His own character. Though great in love and rich in mercy, this love and mercy would not permit those who had defiled His holiness to escape His justice. The unalterable character of God is seen in His answer to the plaintive cry of Jesus as He contemplated the cross, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). But God’s nature was such that His saving mercy could not be extended to fallen man unless the penalty was paid for man’s sin. Thus Jesus became a “propitiation” (1 Jno. 2:1, 2), a “ransom” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) for our sins.

But God’s saving grace was not unconditionally extended. There were some terms that had to be met by man. These conditions are revealed in the gospel. But we must remember that there are not only conditions to be met by the alien sinner, but there also are conditions to be met by the Christian who has sinned. Those of our brethren who would step-forth and extend God’s mercy and His clemency beyond that which He has promised had better be careful, lest they put themselves “in the place of God” (Gen. 50:19; 2 Thess. 2:1-4). The person who has not obeyed the gospel is lost, not just because he did not obey the gospel, but because he has sinned, and God’s justice will not permit Him to overlook sin. The Christian who sins, but who does not repent, confess, and pray, is lost, not just because he has not repented, confessed, and prayed, but because he has sinned! And God’s justice could not over-look sin. If it could have, then God would have let the cup of suffering pass from Jesus. But because of God’s violated holiness, and God’s justice demanding hell, God’s great mercy provided His Son, a Perfect Sacrifice for man’s sins. Thus, with the joy of man’s salvation in view, Jesus endured the cross, and despised (set at nought) the shame (Heb. 12:1, 2).

Why Did Christ Die?

The apostle Paul, in the book of Romans, addresses himself precisely to the answering of the question, “Why did Christ die?” Paul’s answer is found in Rom. 3:21-26. All had sinned (v. 23), so God “by his grace” (v. 24) sent forth Jesus “to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood” (v. 25) to show “his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime” (v. 25). God’s way of making a sinful man righteous again in His sight is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:16, 17).

But precisely, “Why did Christ die?” Paul says it was for two reasons: “that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). But God’s justice would not permit Him to be the “justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” without Jesus’ death on the cross. Remember: This is the conclusion of Paul in the Book of Romans, the book which is so badly being abused and misrepresented by some brethren who are frantically trying to figure someway to get a man saved who “dies with sin on his soul.” Without any intention to appear irreverent, let me suggest that when these brethren get this figured out, they should advise God on how they did it.

Man violated the holiness of God. God’s justice demanded Hell. But God’s mercy and love interceded and tempered His justice, and provided Heaven and the way of escape revealed in the gospel. God’s justice could not proffer forgiveness unconditionally, but some of the brethren can. If God can forgive unconditionally a Christian who “dies with sin on his soul,” would somebody please tell me why this same God could not unconditionally forgive an alien who “dies with sin on his soul”? Now if God un(‘011ditionally forgives one, but does not unconditionally forgive another, then God is a respecter of persons. But the Roman letter denies that. Paul said, “for there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

If God’s nature will permit Him to accept a person who “dies with sin on his soul,” “then Christ died for nought” (Gal. 2:21). Men who seek to devise by theological maneuver some way for God to accept one who “dies with sin on his soul” actually are casting the most serious kind of reflection upon the infinite holiness, and the infinite justice of God, and they thereby vitiate the atoning death of Christ.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26, p. 3-6
May 2, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

Is strictly exegetical discourse on the Word of God a legitimate method of teaching (An explanation or critical interpretation of a text)? Definitely. But what if there is a controversy surrounding a particular subject? Is it enough to merely quote the passages and claim “They mean what they say”? I believe the teacher, in this case, has fallen down on the job.

Scripture is not merely ink and paper-“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jno. 6:63). The Word of God has been given “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). When applied to practical living, God’s word makes a man complete and perfectly equips him to do God’s will (2 Tim. 3:17). It is the responsibility of the teacher therefore, to use the Word to give people what they need (Tit. 1:5; 2 Cor. 12:19-21). Whether the word be used to rebuke sin, prick a conscience, console, or build up a soul, the teacher must give what is needed to the listener. While David stood guilty of adultery, guile, murder, and deception, the prophet Nathan did not lecture him with an exegetical monologue on the Mosaical laws concerning Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage. He told David, “thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7)! Anything less would have been a cop-out.

Let us look to the Master Teacher as an example (1 Jno. 2:6; Eph. 4:13, 15). He taught the people who had the law of God and knew it. They could quote large portions of the text from memory, and there was a group of men called “the scribes and Pharisees” who did little except sit about and give profound exegesis to the people from the law. One commentator has said “Philo of Alexandria declares (ca. A.D. 40) that the Jews learned to read their scriptures from childhood, and Josephus (ca. A.D. 90) says young Jews learned their laws as well as their own names” (E. J. Goodspeed, A Life of Christ, p. 34). In a day before book, chapter, and verse divisions, concordances, and reference libraries, the people knew the scriptures well. As Paul commented to young Timothy, “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures. . .” (2 Tim. 3:15). How and what did Jesus teach these Jews? He gave them what they needed. An example might be the sermon on the mount. Each of the beatitudes was contained in word and principle in the old law. Instead of saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3), why did he not merely give an exegesis of Psalms 51:17 or Isa. 57:15? Instead Jesus took the law and made application of the truth: “Ye have heard it said of them of old time. . . Thou shalt not kill . . . Thou shalt not commit adultery . . . Thou shalt not forswear thyself . . . An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth . . . love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy” (Matt. 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43). Why did not Jesus merely “state something in scriptural terms fairly used according to their context” without any comment on “local and temporal circumstances and situations” as is suggested by one brother (E. Fudge, “A Few Remarks,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 25 (July 19, 1973), p. 172)? Jesus was not interested in a dry exegetical dissertation on the scriptures he quoted. He took the “local and temporal circumstances and situations” and made specific application to the people’s needs. His purpose was to communicate truth in such a way as to affect living. After hearing the words of Jesus the people knew how to give, pray, serve, live, and work for God in this world (Matt. 6). When Jesus finished making application directly to the people, “the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28, 29). Jesus’s teaching was astonishing in that he took the scriptures that they were all comfortable with, the concepts that they had cherished so long, and using language that was understandable and applicable showed their true relevance. He used local events that they were all familiar with: Sacrifice in the temple (5:23, 24), the regional court of the Sanhedrin (5:25, 26), the turn of the seasons (5:45). Jesus used local and temporal characters that all were familiar with: The publicans (5:46-48), the hypocritical philanthropist (6:2), the long faced ascetic (6:5, 7,16). Jesus used relationships that were common to all: Master-servant (6:24), Father-child (7:9-12). He made use of their bodies, the nature about them, the animals, the architecture in their lives to illustrate to them what they needed to know. The Jews knew the words in the scripture, but obviously not the applications.

This same usage of the word of God to communicate truth is demonstrated throughout the rest of the N.T. Every quotation and allusion from the O.T. as used in the New is drawn on as a substantiative authority to prove a point-to make an argument-to teach the truth. There is no expository exegesis without purpose in application in all of the N.T.

Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 to argue the case of the Apostles, that indeed their actions were a fulfillment of the prophet, and their message was divine (Acts 2:17-21). Stephen used many passages from the old testament when he “disputed” with the scholars of his day (Acts 6:9, 10; 7). He used them to support his message of Christ’s resurrection, and to show the unfolding purpose of God in history, despite the disobedience of the Jews. The conclusion of his sermon would be what some might call “ungodly, unchristian, and unbecoming vilification of persons, misrepresentations of the grossest sort, and pawning of subjective and sometimes biased opinions” (E. Fudge, Ibid, p. 173). Anyway, I am sure the Jewish council and the High Priest thought so, for the “applying specifics” that Stephen made was “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before the coming of the Just One: Of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers! Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it” (Acts 7:51-53)! These were strong words and applications that cost Stephen his life. We must be careful that we do not make the same mistake Stephen did-he should have stuck to a strict exegesis of the topic in point and left the conclusions to the court.

Conclusion

There is no controversy that men of God must “devote their time to an intense study of the word of God, and to stating in preaching and print what it actually says” (E. Fudge, Ibid). But as William Barclay puts it, “There is a time when the student and the saint must come down from the study or the cell to put what they have gained in private into practice in public.” Teaching that looks to some place other than the need of man to get right with God, that ignores specific sin, or overlooks error is both useless and deceptive. The purpose of the teacher is to communicate truth that it might bring forth a change on the part of the listener. Anything less is a failure to make all men reflect the Lord, both within and without (Eph. 4:11-13).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:25, p. 12-13
April 24, 1974

By Ronald D. Howes

Deep within the framework of Jehovah’s Witness belief is an unreasonable and unrelenting opposition to the idea that God will punish the wicked eternally. This drives them to wrest the scriptures beyond our wildest imagination.

“. . . when Jesus said that persons would be thrown into Gehenna for their bad deeds, what did he mean? Not that they would be tormented forever.” (Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 44)

A. . . The heartwarming prospect is that then hell, man kinds’ common grave, will be emptied of its unconscious dead. Some receive a resurrection to heavenly glory as spirit creatures . . . . the vast majority of mankind will be brought back to enjoy life on a restored earthly paradise.” (op. cit., p. 45).

There are two separate parts to this problem which must be exposed. First, this is how they will present it to you, “Is it reasonable to suppose that God would go to all the trouble of making this a paradise for Adam and Eve, just to burn it up the last day?” And secondly, does the Bible bear out the idea that God will torment the wicked dead? The first problem works like this. “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever” (Eccl. 1:4). “Who laid the foundation of the earth, that it should not be removed forever?” (Ps. 104:5). With some small amount of satisfaction they will guide the unsuspecting prospect through these two scriptures and loudly proclaim “Now, your Church may not teach this . . . but this is what the Bible says.” Anyone hit over the head with these two verses for the first time will feel the bruise for a long time.

The solution to this is seen in the fact that the Bible does not always use the term “forever,” and “everlasting” or combinations of these words, to mean what we think of in the word “infinity.” The New World Translation which was put out by the Watchtower for the Witnesses is the very best thing to use in this case. Their translation of the Hebrew word for “eternal” or “everlasting” or “forever” is generally given with this phrase, “till time indefinite.” A few comparisons of this term will clear the air..

Subject How Long? But

The priesthood of Aaron(Ex. 30:21) “till time indefinite” It ended Heb. 10:9-12

The sacrifices of the Law(Lev. 16:34 NWT) “till time indefinite” They ended Heb. 10:9-12

The Earth (Eccl. 1:4, Ps. 104:5) “till time indefinite” Will End Heb. 12:27 2 Pet. 3:10-12 Ps. 102:25-26

The phrase “till time indefinite” catches the sense of the original word. According to God’s word, the sacrifices, the priesthood, and the earth were established in their respective areas, “to an indefinite time” but we can see that they all did or will end.

Jehovah’s Witnesses like to make fine distinctions in definitions, and build whole systems of belief on those fine definitions. Note that in 2 Peter 3 is a comparison of the first destruction of the world, with the impending destruction of the earth. Just skipping, through these verses, a Witness would be quick to point, out to the unsuspecting prospect that God is going to destroy the world which they define as “this system of things,” meaning of course the civilization and works of man on the face of the earth. But Peter bears out a distinction here, fine enough; to make even the Witnesses tremble. He says God destroyed the “World” (that system of things) by water. But, He is going to destroy the earth (the planet, the earth, the dirt) with fire, and the works therein, to the surprise of some.

Having firmly established the impending destruction of this planet, one needs to progress to the problem of life after death. Remember though that the Witnesses do not believe in the existence of an immortal spirit or soul. There are enough scriptures on the prospect of pain and suffering of the wicked after death to silence the objections of even the Watchtower servants. The Witnesses say, “There is no life after death, therefore there can be no Hell.” The parables of our Lord abound with direct statements about the future state of the wicked. Matt. 8:11, 12: “the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. 22:13: “bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Rev. 14:9-11: “if any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God . . . and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angles . . . and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night . . . .”

The classic illustration of the future state of the dead is Superior To A n found in Luke 16:19-31, where the Lord tells the events surrounding the lives and deaths of the Rich Man and Argument? Lazarus. Witnesses are quick to point out that this is an illustration, or parable and that it does not mean what it says.

. . . Jesus was giving a parable or illustration and was not speaking of a literal place of torment …. In this illustration the rich man stood for the class of religious leaders who rejected and later killed Jesus. Lazarus pictured the common people who accepted God’s Son . . . this illustration does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.” (The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 42.)

There are several problems with what they say about these verses though, and the first one is that what they say is wrong. Unless Jesus gave the parable to confuse everyone, it will be like the other parables and teach the truth about some moral question or problem. In verse 30 even the Rich Man admits that he is in the place of the dead; why then won’t the Witnesses? We can readily admit that some parts may be figurative, like Abraham’s bosom or the cooling water, but Jesus does not lie or try to deceive men. Do not allow the opposition to erase this teaching off the page of inspiration by just saying that it is figurative. Whether literal or figurative, it is the truth and must be accepted.

The proponents of Watchtower theology object to a God who would torment and punish, but the basis for this belief is not found in Luke 16 “. . . work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). Why? Certainly not to escape a paradise earth, but the flames of a terrible hell.

Next: The Watchtower Gospel (Part 111): Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:25, p. 8-9
April 25, 1974